Changes

[[image:pseudoscience2.jpg|400px|thumb]]

[[image:pseudoscience2.jpg|400px|thumb]]

'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs, and claims which are presented as scientific but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. They are usually not supported by evidence, not sufficiently tested, or even implausible. Scientific terms are often misused or used in a confusing way to resemble real science. Pseudoscientific claims are often not falsifiable and expressed in unclear terms, with the intent to render them difficult to disprove.

'''Pseudoscience''' are theories, beliefs, and claims which are given a semblance to science but do not adhere to the strict standards of science. Pseudosciene will more often than not immunise itself against falsification by applying terms they do not properly define and by refusing to commit themselves to falsifiable predictions.

The term "pseudoscience" has been in use since the 18th century and one of the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles". The current definition is more or less based on the works of Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience<ref>[http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/S&PS.html T. H. Huxley: Science and Pseudo-Science]</ref><ref>„Incidentally, the philosopher Karl Popper coined the term, ‘pseudo-science’. The examples he gave were (Western) astrology and homeopathy, the medical system developed in Germany.“ V. V. S. Sarma: Natural calamities and pseudoscientific menace. Current Science 90:2 (25. Januar 2006); „The notion of pseudoscience, as coined by philosopher Karl Popper is discussed in the context of its application to library science and its implications for selection.“ Graham Howard: Pseudo Science and Selection. Collection Management 29:2 (24. Mai 2005)</ref>

The term "pseudoscience" has been in use since the 18th century and one of the first recorded uses of the word "pseudo-science" was in 1844 in the Northern Journal of Medicine, I 387: "That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles". The current definition is more or less based on the works of Thomas Huxley and Karl Popper. Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing science from pseudoscience<ref>[http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/S&PS.html T. H. Huxley: Science and Pseudo-Science]</ref><ref>„Incidentally, the philosopher Karl Popper coined the term, ‘pseudo-science’. The examples he gave were (Western) astrology and homeopathy, the medical system developed in Germany.“ V. V. S. Sarma: Natural calamities and pseudoscientific menace. Current Science 90:2 (25. Januar 2006); „The notion of pseudoscience, as coined by philosopher Karl Popper is discussed in the context of its application to library science and its implications for selection.“ Graham Howard: Pseudo Science and Selection. Collection Management 29:2 (24. Mai 2005)</ref>

==Overview==

==Overview==

There are several criteria which distinguish science from pseudoscience. Basically, if a scientific claim does not meet scientific norms it may be classified as pseudoscience. Distinguishing between bad or deceptive research in science and pseudoscience is often difficult. One difference is that pseudoscientific claims are often in conflict with empiric scientific knowledge and created specifically to support a certain model of thinking, while fraudulent science tries to fit its "results" into current scientific theories. Scientific jokes and fraud in science are not considered as pesudoscience.

There is a multitude of criteria which distinguish science from pseudoscience. Generally speaking any aberrance from the basis of scientific approach may be an indication of pseudoscience. Distinguishing between bad or deceptive research within science on the one hand and pseudoscience on the other, however, may often be problematic. Pseudoscience is most often characterized by being especially designed to support a certain prefabricated construct of ideas. Furthermore, pseudoscientific results will be in contradiction of empiric scientific theories, while cases of fraud within established science will predominantly attempt to incorporate "results" into existing theories. Scientific jokes and fraud may not be considered as pseudoscience.

Pseudoscientific claims are usually created by single persons whose authority must not be doubted. The claims of the creator are to be seen as a dogma and pleaded as such. Experiments and theoretical approaches to explain a phenomenon are always explained or reinterpreted to support the dogma.

The construct of a particular pseudoscience often bases on one person whose authority must not be doubted. The original statements of its initiator will be presented in dogmatic ways, and both theoretic approaches of explanation and possible series of experiments will always be interpreted in accordance with the original dogma.  

Pseudoscientists often use "experiments" to prove their claims, but manipulate either selection or results to "prove" the alleged validity of their claims.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: A complex and/or absurd theorie is preferred over a simple explanation. Also, pseudoscience never changes and updates its views when new evidence is found. If it can be fitted into the theory, this evidence is embraced and used. If it does not fit, evidence is ignored, dismissed, or claimed to be bogus.

Pseudoscience often uses "experiments" and takes random data from the statistical noise which support fake desired effects by handy selection and manipulation.<ref>http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/ Gerhard Bruhn, Erhard Wielandt, Klaus Keck: Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig</ref> Often an "[[Inverted Occam's Razor]]" will be applied: Complex or absurd theories are preferred over approaches with an economoical application of hypotheses. One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it does not recognize any method of detecting mistakes of its studies or conclusions, let alone correct them in the first place.

Esoterics often look for an extension or improvement of science and end up as enemies of science.

Many esoterics often look for a substitute of or complement to science and thus eventually appear to be fighting science.

==Typical Characteristics==

==Typical Characteristics==

* Claims are not supported by evidence. These claims will often be in conflict with current experimental data or mathematical theories, and sometimes even contradict common sense.

* Claims which will not be substantiated by experiment or are not deductible mathmatically: Often, such claims will be in contradiction to experiments, mathmatic theories, and very often also to so-called common sense.

* Based on sources which cannot be validated

* will quote sources which cannot be reproduced and therefore cannot be validated

* Based on experiments which cannot be reproduced (or yield different results)

* will be based on experiments which cannot be reproduced (or yield different results)

* Contradictory [[Occam's Razor]]

* will be contradictory to [[Occam's Razor]]

* Systematically ignore evidence or only select convenient evidence

* will systematically suppress evidence or select evidence and observations particularly convenient.

==The seven sins of pseudoscience==

==The seven sins of pseudoscience==

Several science theoreticians have compiled lists of the sins distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. This includes lists by Langmuir ([1953] 1989), Gruenberger (1964), Dutch (1982), Bunge (1982), Radner and Radner (1982), Kitcher (1982, 30–54), Hansson (1983), Grove (1985), Thagard (1988), Glymour and Stalker (1990), Derkson (1993, 2001), Vollmer (1993), Ruse (1996, 300–306) and Mahner (2007)<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ Science and Pseudo-Science], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>Deerksen A.A: ''The seven sins of pseudo-science'', Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Volume 24, Number 1 / März 1993</ref>. These are usually:

Several science theoreticians have compiled lists of the sins distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. This includes lists by Langmuir ([1953] 1989), Gruenberger (1964), Dutch (1982), Bunge (1982), Radner and Radner (1982), Kitcher (1982, 30–54), Hansson (1983), Grove (1985), Thagard (1988), Glymour and Stalker (1990), Derkson (1993, 2001), Vollmer (1993), Ruse (1996, 300–306) and Mahner (2007)<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ Science and Pseudo-Science], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref><ref>Deerksen A.A: ''The seven sins of pseudo-science'', Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Volume 24, Number 1 / März 1993</ref>. These are usually:

#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others must accept their judgments.

#Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a superior comprehension and thus their statement is to be accepted.

#Nonrepeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same result.

#Irreproducible experiments: Reliance is put on experiments which cannot be repeated by others with the same result.

#Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category the investigation refers to.

#Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category the investigation refers to.

#Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.

#Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.

#Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments in conflict with a theory are neglected.

#Unfounded immunisation: critical arguments will be dismissed, while arguments supporting one's own conceptions will be cultivated systematically.

#Built-in subterfuge: Testing of a theory is arranged in such ways that results will always confirm the theory, and never disprove it.

#Embedded deception: Testing of a theory is arranged in such ways that a theory may only be confirmed by results, but never falsified.

#Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)

#Explanations are removed without replacement. Tenable explanations are eliminated so that the new theory explains less than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)

<!-- Skipped parascience, seems to be even less used in english than in german -->

<!-- Skipped parascience, seems to be even less used in english than in german -->